Thames Water - leakage and delivery rates. Shocking numbers.

[hub2dee]

Thames Water deliver 2,822 million litres of water daily. They have a leakage rate of 895 million litres per day.

Source .

I am not sure if the leakage is factored into the total delivery (which would give a leakage rate of 31.7%), or if it is a separate figure (this yields a leakage rate of 24.1%). Either way it's absolutely terrible and a complete insult to those on hosepipe bans.

[hub2dee]

Ironically, their profit was up 31% this last year too, LOL.

[ruty]

privatisation. Works for the railways too. Speechless.

[hub2dee]

Come on, this stat must make at least one other person heave.

[southeastastra]

it's annoying but they are trying to replace alot of victorian pipes. it will take time, half the roads are up around here while they do some.

[ruty]

it is the profits that annoy me most of all. Shouldn't profits be in line with an increase in productivity and efficiency, rather than with a reduction?

[hub2dee]

They should have been more proactive on the leaks earlier IMHO. Even now, they are being forced to divery more cash towards repair by OFWAT (I think it is )... they will get away with this grotesque 'service' as long as they can... perhaps as long as they have shareholders.

It's a cop out and tbh I'm surprised there is not more mass-action against this, or pushing for refunds on bills etc. etc.

[DominiConnor]

I would be more impressed by the "shareholders are evil" aqrgument if public services where characterised by less inefficiency.
Notice that the regulator, a 100% state run body with no evil shareholders chose not to impose a significant fine, but instead told them to invest more.
Note that no real target has been set, only a level of expenditure. Anyone here think that this is a good way of solvinf the problem ?
Also, although TW have been wretched at fixing leaks, in the previous centur of state ownership the maintenance of the pipe network was if anything worse.
The problem is not who owns the outfit that maintains the system, but the fact that they are a state enforced monopoly in business where free markets wouldn't work very much better.
As the old British Rail, and the modern Child Support Agency show, a lack of shareholders isn't a guarantee of efficiency is it ?
What we have is what economists call "externalisation of costs". Ie getting others to pay for what you want. TW "owns" all water for some huge area. Water was nationalised a very long time ago, and thus the raw material is seen as "free". Thus when they screw up a river by taking too much water out, there is no cost to them.
This applies as much to a state run department, as a private firm.
If TW had to pay the owners of land for the water they take, then they would choose to reduce losses through leaks.